[4E] D&D Starter Set

[murquhart72]

Seeing the box in Border's Bookstore gave my tummy tingles

Included therein:
A little note with code for downloading an additional solo adventure.
Player's Book, in which you "create" (read: copy down) your first character via solo adventure.
DM's Book, in which you continue the adventure for those who have read the above.
Several sheets of flimsy, punch out Power Cards & Magic Item Cards.
One sheet of excellent, punch out counters, featuring all the creatures in the set.
6 black (white numbered) dice: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20.
4 "simplified" character sheets designed for a color photocopier.
Ad sheet describing where to go from here.

The Power Cards are quick reference for things like spells, thief abilities, etc. that you keep nearby your character sheet.
After enjoying this set, you're meant to move on NOT to the core rulebooks, but RATHER to WotC's D&D Essentials line: bite-sized products including a softcover rules compendium, "official" D&D dice, two books for making PCs (one is for Fighters, Clerics, Rogues and Wizards, the other is for Rangers, Paladins, Druids and Warlocks). Also, the DM's Kit, three sets of Dungeon Tiles (Dungeon, City, Wilderness) and a monster book that collects the all time favorite and most common beasties for the game.

After playing through and making myself a human Fighter, I have to say I thought it all unnecessarily complicated and overpowered. I just don't think I can get into this game, but it IS a decent game for the young-uns or those who enjoy video games.

[murquhart72]

On character creation:

You start off by picking your race (human, dwarf, elf or halfling) and gender, then naming your character. Then, depending on the choices you make in the adventure, you choose your class (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric or Rogue) and alignment (Good, Lawful Good or Unaligned). Your abilities are already rolled for, but depend somewhat on the choices you've made so far.
The adventure involves being waylaid by goblin minions (minions never having more than 1 hit point, compared to the 20+ you could have) and following them back to their lair.

My opinion (so far):

I haven't gotten much further than that. In the time I played this far, I could've made up half a dozen characters with the original rules and already gotten three or four good encounters in. Of course, they wouldn't have the ability to heal themselves after every encounter or pump out spells like there's no tomorrow either. In this game, you pretty much start out almost super-human and just get better from there. It's almost impossible to die... I mean "go unconscious".

[Deleted]

Nice review. I'm still trying to decide if I should give 4th Ed a shot. Maybe this box is cheap enough for me to gamble on....

[geoffrey]

I wish this was something that I could like. 4E's combat is just too complex for my tastes. I don't mind 4E's obsession with balance. I don't mind that 4E characters are very hard to kill. I can deal with healing surges. I don't mind 4E getting rid of "save or die" and "save or suck" situations. I don't mind in 4E that all saving throws succeed on a roll of 10 or higher on a d20. I don't mind that 4E characters gain levels quickly. Etc.

But I want to play D&D, not work at it. I want to enjoy designing settings for D&D, not feel like I'm doing math homework.

My only other major issue is that 4E pretty much makes it mandatory for the PCs to have lots of magic items. I don't like it when the rules make decisions about my campaign for me. What if I want a campaign with few or no magic items?

I don't think I'm asking for much. I can accept most of 4E other than its over-the-top combat complexity and its reliance on magic items.

Oh, one more thing: The game has too many pages. What's wrong with a complete game in 128 (or, preferably, fewer) pages?

[murquhart72]

My thinking exactly! There are so many powers and abilities for each character now that they print them on cards to keep handy! I just can't keep up with all the rules, there are just too many for every little thing.
When I get a chance, I'll keep playing around with it and see if it'll grow on me. I'll keep posting a kind of "running review" as I do.

[vito]

Sept 12, 2010 9:18:44 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

My only other major issue is that 4E pretty much makes it mandatory for the PCs to have lots of magic items. I don't like it when the rules make decisions about my campaign for me. What if I want a campaign with few or no magic items?

Then use the 'inherent bonus' guidelines from DMGII.

[stevemitchell]

I've never played any version of AD&D before, but I thought I'd try this for the "develop your character through a solo adventure" aspect, plus the $20.00 buy-in was affordable. So, I created a 1st Level Dwarf Warrior--with 29 hit points and some special powers--and then watched him sail through two combat encounters, killing six goblins in the process. Quite a change from how it used to go with White Box. . . .

[jonathan]

Sept 12, 2010 9:18:44 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

My only other major issue is that 4E pretty much makes it mandatory for the PCs to have lots of magic items. I don't like it when the rules make decisions about my campaign for me. What if I want a campaign with few or no magic items?

I don't think I'm asking for much. I can accept most of 4E other than its over-the-top combat complexity and its reliance on magic items.

As was mentioned above, there are explicit guidelines in 4e on how to run a low-magic campaign where PCs avoid loading up on boring +X items. The math is just changed "under the hood" so that PCs can still keep up with appropriately threatening monsters and challenges while allowing the DM to focus on including more imaginative magic items in his or her campaign.

In fact, I believe the 4e Dark Sun campaign setting guide includes guidelines on avoiding magic items completely and instead gives PCs unique powers and abilities from supernatural boons and other phenomenon.

edit: You could probably run a pretty sweet Carcosa campaign using 4e rules along with just the Martial (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord) and possibly Psionic classes (depending on how much you want them to be part of the campaign) - leaving almost all magic to strange rituals and mysterious ancient artifacts.

Sept 13, 2010 7:51:10 GMT -6 stevemitchell said:

I've never played any version of AD&D before, but I thought I'd try this for the "develop your character through a solo adventure" aspect, plus the $20.00 buy-in was affordable. So, I created a 1st Level Dwarf Warrior--with 29 hit points and some special powers--and then watched him sail through two combat encounters, killing six goblins in the process. Quite a change from how it used to go with White Box. . . .

I think that's just due to the differing defualt assumptions behind PCs in the two editions. In 4e, PCs are heroic and a cut above the general populace from the start of the campaign, while you didn't attain heroic status in OD&D until a few levels later (level 4 if you want to use level titles literally, heh). Considering that Mr. Gygax commonly started PCs at 3rd level in his later years as shown in house rules posted on this very forum, I think it's a fair assumption that many RPG players prefer that method.

Tastes may vary, as always

[jonathan]

Also, here's an example of the newer Essentials 4e character sheet:

www.wizards.com/dnd/files/dnd_essentialscharactersheet.zip

I think this sheet shows that 4e isn't necessarily that much more complicated than OD&D and I'd say it's definitely much closer than 3e was (just my opinion, of course). For example, I think you could probably use an index card along with the print-out power cards from the character builder and run a 4e character pretty easily.


Also, here are the pre-gens that come with the new Red Box:

www.wizards.com/dnd/files/RedBoxCharacters.pdf

These guys are obviously designed to scratch that same bit of nostalgia itch as the Red Box cover, for better or worse.

[Deleted]

Have seen it in my less than FLGS (more like 'indifferent'). I think it was released 11/9/10 over here (UK) so am still waiting for my order from Amazon to arrive (a week later than release). That said, my high hopes have been dashed somewhat after seeing how powerful 1st level characters are. Where's the risk? I think one write up had a Dwarf with 32 hp, 8 healing surges (whatever they are - restore 1-6 HP or something?) and various other bits and pieces at 1st level. Is 1st level (only) piled high with bonuses then they level out or will a character have several hundred hit points by 10th level?

I have 4e but not read it yet (cheap on ebay, someone elses cast off). I want to like this, but coming from early basic/AD&D1e it looks like I'll have to grit my teeth through the first couple of readings and try it regardless of what I think.

Before it goes on ebay as my cast off

edit: spelling and grammar

[coffee]

Sept 13, 2010 9:31:30 GMT -6 @apn said:

Where's the risk? I think one write up had a Dwarf with 32 hp, 8 healing surges (whatever they are - restore 1-6 HP or something?) and various other bits and pieces at 1st level.

Yeah, but kobolds can have 100 hp...

[geoffrey]

Whether or not 1st-level PCs are in much danger of getting killed isn't definitive for me. Over the decades, I've played D&D both ways (ultra-deadly on the one extreme, very hard to lose a PC on the other, and points in between), and I've had as much fun one way as with another.

PCs start off very powerful in 1st edition Gamma World, starting with an average of 42 hit points. PCs also start off quite powerful in Gary's latest FRPG, Lejendary Adventures.

For me, the fun of the game is in exploring magical places. Some danger needs to be present to give things an edge, but whether it's a lot of danger or only a little bit of danger doesn't affect my enjoyment one way or the other. B1: In Search of the Unknown is a pretty forgiving place, and it is one of the most magical modules ever published. S1: Tomb of Horrors, on the other hand, is ultra-deadly, and is one of the best modules TSR ever published. Both modules are quintessentially D&D.

I'd forgotten about the guidelines in DMGII for excluding magic items from the game. So that's an easy fix. For me the sticking point is the complex combat of 4E.

This, I think, is where 5E needs to go. It can keep all (or at least most) of the design philosophy of 4E, but it needs to be considerably simplified. The entirety of the core 5E rules needs to be no more than 128 pages (preferably divided into a players' book and a DMs' book) and stuck in a box with a set of dice. Make sure this set can be played indefinitely. Then release 100% optional add-on products.

[vito]

If you want more difficulty in combat, you could always scale the threats up.
Instead of attacking level 1 PCs with level 1 monsters, try attacking them with level 5 monsters.

I agree on complexity though. The rules do need to be scaled back a bit.

[jonathan]

Sept 13, 2010 10:15:51 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I'd forgotten about the guidelines in DMGII for excluding magic items from the game. So that's an easy fix. For me the sticking point is the complex combat of 4E.

What do you consider complex about 4e combat? I would wager your biggest sticking point is the need for a combat grid and tokens or miniatures and I'll admit that it'd be more trouble than it's worth to try to play 4e without one. OTOH, aside from that I think 4e combat runs fairly simply.

In general, D&D 4e is more like AD&D than OD&D in this regard - it's trying to create a relatively standard framework which players across the world can all use and understand one another. I think almost by definition it's going to be more complex than something like OD&D, which is a great game, but IMO heavily relies on ad-hoc rulings that will look wildly different from table to table. I think that's a great feature of the original game, but I don't think it fits WotC's goal for their version of D&D.

[tavis]

I think the thing you can do to make 4E combat not too complex is to throw out most/all pre-scripted powers and use the guidelines on DMG p. 42 to improvise combat maneuvers instead. This requires ad-hoc rulings but should be no problem for folks here!

[geoffrey]

Sept 13, 2010 11:04:43 GMT -6 jonathan said:

What do you consider complex about 4e combat? I would wager your biggest sticking point is the need for a combat grid and tokens or miniatures and I'll admit that it'd be more trouble than it's worth to try to play 4e without one. OTOH, aside from that I think 4e combat runs fairly simply.

Combat grids and miniatures are a 100% turn-off for me. As soon as those are present, my imagination gets hi-jacked and replaced with a chess-like game (and I don't like chess). That's not for me. At all.

In my 30 years of playing D&D, I've always essentially ran combats according to the 4-page combat section in the Holmes rulebook (though we usually use initiative--1d6, high roll wins). Regardless of one's opinion of 4E's combat, it is certainly more complex and more time-consuming than Holmses's combat. I am a lazy old cuss, and I have zero interest in anything more complex, time-consuming, "realistic", "fun", etc. than combat in Holmes or in, say, 1st edition Gamma World.

I hope I'm not coming across as nasty. That is certainly not my intent. It's just that I am completely baffled by WotC's inability after 10 years of owning D&D to make a simple (yet complete) D&D game that normal people can understand and will want to understand. Look at the B/X D&D rulebooks. Look at 1st edition Gamma World. Look at Star Frontiers. Look at Marvel Super Heroes. Etc. Each of these games fit in a single box, and each had no more than 128 (and usually 64 or fewer) pages of rules. Yet each of these games is a stand-alone game that one could play all by itself for decades on end. None of them was a 1- or 2-level wonder, like all of WotC's intoductory D&D boxed sets. All of WotC's intro D&D sets are essentially advertisements for their "core" D&D rules that are several hundreds of pages long. Ugh. No thanks.

I'm not one of those "I hate WotC no matter what." I want to like the current edition of D&D. I want them to make a $20 boxed set that's all I would ever need to play for decades. WotC is ignoring the casual gamer, the person who might like to play D&D for 2 or 3 hours per month, then forget about it until the urge to play returns a month or so later. What about people who just want to play D&D and not make a hobby of it? I think that's the single biggest part of D&D's "image" problem: People (with some justification) think that D&D isn't a casual game like Monopoly, but rather a way of life.

[jonathan]

No, you're totally fine! Like I said, if you don't like using a grid and minis, then 4e combat probably isn't for you. And again, part of why I like these forums so much is that people here seem to understand that the difference between the different editions of D&D are more matters of taste and preference than objectively being better or worse.

One thing I specifically agree with you about is that 4e is missing a "sweet spot" of rules from say level 1-5 or so that'd be more manageable than the full-on game, but still more fulfilling than any of the more recent intro sets.

Another thing I think could be interesting is if someone could convert some of the more precise movement and placement rules of 4e into something less concrete and more fluid. Maybe use more verbally descriptive ranges like Melee, Second Rank, and Ranged.

[murquhart72]

Grids and minis don't bother me at all. In fact, that's one of the few things I DO like about 4E. What I don't get is why you need a dozen classes where just two or three will do. Why all the Powers, Feats and Skills when all you need are Saving Throws and Abilities? Your character sheet shouldn't look like a shipping/receiving form with attached punch cards, but rather everything should be able to fit on a single index card. COMPLEX. That's what I get from 4E.
If they'd just cut the rules down to, say, 96 pages for the WHOLE game, instead of half a dozen 200 page books, I'd be happier with it
Still haven't given up yet! Just don't have time right now to figure out all the formulas and get used to several phases per adventure. I just wanna play.

[Finarvyn]

I never played miniatures-based D&D until Milton Bradley's HeroQuest came out in the 80's, but I'm having fun with moving little dudes around the battleboard. Kind of neat, actually. What I don't like are all of the rules for "pushes" or "slides" or things like that. Maybe I'll get the hang of that stuff, maybe not.

And I agree that it's odd that WotC has never figured out that just reprinting some of the old classics (which are already written for them) would make a large slice of the old-timers a lot happier. It's like they just throw it in our faces and try to tell us that our game isn't cool anymore.

Still, I'm finding that I don't hate 4E like I thought I might. I would prefer a much thinner set of rules, but the game does have some good parts. My players never liked 1st level characters but 4E 1st level characters are more like 3rd or so in an older edition, and they get to do more during a battle and they like that part. I can't really improvise an adventure yet, and I'll be darned if I can figure out whether an encounter is balanced or not, but it has been kind of fun playing 4E so far.

[murquhart72]

As has been shown with Pathfinder, 3E and 4E are great games in their own right. But not "really" D&D, which is where most old folks have their issues, I think. D&D should be like Monopoly or Texas Hold 'em or Chess: don't keep changing the rules, just present them in updated ways and with updated graphics/packaging.
D&D, IMHO, has become a failure as a game, because too many people are trying to make it different than it was when it was first published in '74. Just leave it alone and let it stand on it's own. Then call 4E something else and market it as the "video gamer's D&D" or something.
Unfortunately, it's all about the brand name and the benjamins.
I'm hoping to get back into playing more of this Starter Set towards the weekend and will post my thoughts when I can.

[Finarvyn]

Sept 13, 2010 15:59:37 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Still, I'm finding that I don't hate 4E like I thought I might.

In re-reading my post, I notice that the above isn't really a ringing endorsement.

[coffee]

Sept 13, 2010 16:30:09 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Sept 13, 2010 15:59:37 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Still, I'm finding that I don't hate 4E like I thought I might.

In re-reading my post, I notice that the above isn't really a ringing endorsement.

Oh, you wanted a ringing endorsement? How about this:

D&D 4e Essentials is the newest version of D&D ever!

Close enough?

[murquhart72]

LAWLZ

[eris]

Sept 13, 2010 15:59:37 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I never played miniatures-based D&D until Milton Bradley's HeroQuest came out in the 80's, but I'm having fun with moving little dudes around the battleboard. Kind of neat, actually. What I don't like are all of the rules for "pushes" or "slides" or things like that. Maybe I'll get the hang of that stuff, maybe not.

Face-to-face, my players *want* the little dudes to move around. Personally, as a DM, I'd just as soon keep everything in our imaginations, but that ship has sailed with my group.

I'm a bit strange, in that all I have are a bunch of unpainted Martian Metals 15mm mini's from back in the 70's and early 80's. My players have no, no, desire to buy any minis of their own, just use mine. You simply can't find 15 mm figures any more so they couldn't buy any way. 15mm mini's work with 1/2" squares or 5/8" hexes so all of my "battle maps" are on that scale, and that means everything has to be custom drawn by me...or scanned and reduced by 50%.

Recently, I've used really scaled back Castles & Crusades and online 3rd edition SRD, and I mean really scaled back. Ascending AC, weapon damage as written, standard prices and advancement, but without most everything else rules-wise. Mostly DM rulings and "try it and see if it works." [As an aside, I had a youngster playing a wizard who got really creative with utility type low level spells and I let him run with it...the better he described what he wanted to do the lower I'd set a challenge (I didn't tell him what the number needed was of course) and tell him to "roll that d20!" He pulled off things like using Prestidigitation to cause a vase on a mantelpiece to fall onto a Goblin's head (stunned the monster for a round and gave him time to run and one of his fighter companions to cover his retreat).]

As for the slides and moves...I've been doing that since the 70's...but not as RULES. I'd never do that with rules! A fighter describes what they are doing, "I bash the Orc with my sword while trying to shove it back with my shield." If the player hits, they can do damage and move their opponent...if I decide it is reasonable...and of course the monsters are doing it too! The "thief" character might say, "Julio, dives between the Giant's legs, somersaulting to his feet behind him ready to deliver a back stab!", and I decide, on the fly, what it takes for him to do it, tell him to roll and see what happens.

I guess I've been running an almost completely Page 42 game all along! I highly recommend it it one and all!

Still, I'm finding that I don't hate 4E like I thought I might. I would prefer a much thinner set of rules, but the game does have some good parts. My players never liked 1st level characters but 4E 1st level characters are more like 3rd or so in an older edition, and they get to do more during a battle and they like that part. I can't really improvise an adventure yet, and I'll be darned if I can figure out whether an encounter is balanced or not, but it has been kind of fun playing 4E so far.

Yeah, my one big take away from 4E is more capable 1st level characters with a much flatter rise in power as they go up in levels. As for planning encounters and such, I had hopes, but like 3 before it, 4 is a disappointment to me.

BTW, I did buy the 4E Red Box on Saturday, but "real life" has intervened and I haven't had a chance to do anything but take the plastic wrap off and look inside yet. The tokens gave me some interesting thoughts, but I don't know if I want to go to 1" squares or to stay with our 1/2" ones. Hum, maybe use the MapTools token maker utility, scale the images down to 1/2", cut them out and mount them on metal washers...that might be a good way to get a bunch of monsters to use with my old MM 15's. I am also intrigued with the concept of Power Cards (or spell cards really as I'll stick with old school Vancian magic) and have used them before (give a Wizard a few index cards with their spells on them, as they cast their spells, they "play" their cards, and they go off the table when the spells effects are used up, when the wizard rests and studies they get cards back...so that's not new. The maps on that poster sized sheet are...meh!...to me anyway, and I haven't had a chance to dig into the books yet. Hopefully this coming weekend.

[Deleted]

I too picked up the new starter set last week, along with "Heroes of the Fallen Lands" & the "Rules Compendium." I'm currently doing my d**nedest to learn the ins & outs of the system, & finding it more difficult for my brain to grasp than I originally anticipated. Once I do get it down, however, I have plans to tweak it for a more "rules-lite" game. I'll keep everyone posted on my ongoing experiment. Please be patient with me - this might take awhile...

[Mike]

Sept 13, 2010 13:30:39 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I'm not one of those "I hate WotC no matter what." I want to like the current edition of D&D. I want them to make a $20 boxed set that's all I would ever need to play for decades. WotC is ignoring the casual gamer, the person who might like to play D&D for 2 or 3 hours per month, then forget about it until the urge to play returns a month or so later. What about people who just want to play D&D and not make a hobby of it? I think that's the single biggest part of D&D's "image" problem: People (with some justification) think that D&D isn't a casual game like Monopoly, but rather a way of life.

Yes! This is what I can't figure out why wouldn't they want to market a game for everyone rather than create a niche subculture?

[tombowings]

Sept 26, 2010 20:14:39 GMT -6 Mike said:

Sept 13, 2010 13:30:39 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I'm not one of those "I hate WotC no matter what." I want to like the current edition of D&D. I want them to make a $20 boxed set that's all I would ever need to play for decades. WotC is ignoring the casual gamer, the person who might like to play D&D for 2 or 3 hours per month, then forget about it until the urge to play returns a month or so later. What about people who just want to play D&D and not make a hobby of it? I think that's the single biggest part of D&D's "image" problem: People (with some justification) think that D&D isn't a casual game like Monopoly, but rather a way of life.

Yes! This is what I can't figure out why wouldn't they want to market a game for everyone rather than create a niche subculture?

Maybe they think that only a niche subculture will buy their game supplements and won't be happy with just the core 3.

[geoffrey]

Sept 27, 2010 0:01:15 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Maybe they think that only a niche subculture will buy their game supplements and won't be happy with just the core 3.

You're probably right, but WotC doesn't have to treat it as an either-or. They could have two things:

1) The $20 complete-in-one-box (like 1st edition Gamma World, Star Frontiers, B/X together, etc.) D&D game that people could play on its own for decades. This would be for most people, including those with a casual and occasional interest in playing a game of D&D for a couple of hours.

2) The plethora of books, modules, supplements, novels, miniatures, internet stuff, etc. for those who make a hobby out of D&D.

The two would be at least as compatible as, say, B/X D&D is with AD&D.

[Falconer]

Yes, I have long thought that a the model of the Basic/boxed/toy-store/perennial/casual/Monopoly style game plus the Advanced/hardcover/hobby-store/expandable/Starfleet Battles style game is the way to go. BUT, it is the former that should be the focus of the business, as a lite and accessible but nonetheless complete game, i.e. not just as a gateway into the latter. I say it should be the focus, because the Monopoly model, where every household has one whether they play it once a month or once a year, seems more financially and culturally satisfying. Even if it fell from favor, Monopoly will not die out completely, not for hundreds of years or more. Can you say that of Dungeons & Dragons?

Where I don’t agree with you is that I insist that the mass-market Dungeons & Dragons boxed game should actually should be the classic game that everyone knows and remembers and likes how it was. Tweaks over time are inevitable, but something of similar scope and approach as the ’81 Basic + Expert sets, or the White Box + Greyhawk, is definitely what I have in mind.

[leon]

Sept 27, 2010 10:43:53 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Yes, I have long thought that a the model of the Basic/boxed/toy-store/perennial/casual/Monopoly style game plus the Advanced/hardcover/hobby-store/expandable/Starfleet Battles style game is the way to go.

I'm not so sure about that. I think the Basic-Advanced dichotomy proved problematic, since it essentially created two different games with two different rulesets. In some instances I scratch my head when I see stuff in "Basic" which are more advanced than "Advanced" D&D.

Core rules which can be found in a single book or a single box is perhaps the best way to go and everything on top of that can be optional. But the optional book will only supplement never substitute the "core".